White House: Chicago’s Gun Control Failure Indicates the Need for National Gun Control

“The city of Chicago is a good illustration of why allowing local jurisdictions to put in place these gun safety laws doesn’t work,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told the press corps ahead of President Obama’s visit to The Windy City. How’s that, you ask? “Because it’s just too easy for those with bad intentions to just cross the city line or just cross the county line and make a handgun purchase that they are prevented from making in some other jurisdictions.” The way I read that . . .

Earnest is arguing that Uncle Sam should be in charge of all gun control – sorry “safety” – laws rather than “local jurisdictions” (cities, towns, counties or States). Before you go all state’s rights on President Obama’s ass, keep in mind that federal law already supersedes all local gun control laws. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms from any local, state. county or federal government. Heller, dontcha know.

Often somebody who is seeking to evade gun laws like that is somebody who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

Interesting use of the word “often.” It’s an admission that some of the people seeking to evade Chicago or Illinois gun laws aren’t people who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place. How about them apples.

This is somebody with a criminal record, somebody who may be the subject of a restraining order or maybe even somebody with a mental problem. Chicago ends up being a pretty good illustration for why those kinds of national laws are important to the safety of communities all across the country.

Sure. Chicago’s failure is an excellent example of how we need national gun control – provided you’re the kind of person who reckons the federal government is the answer to everything. Even when it isn’t.

“logic”:
reasoning conducted based upon principles of validity,
the course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by
a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference

Good jeebus. Why do I have to explain semantics to my side?
Of course, we all disagree with their line of reasoning. But it IS their LINE OF REASONING and as such this conclusion/assertion of theirs was foreseeable.

Dr Vino can follow the enemy thought process. I’ll sum it up: gun control is good, and gun confiscation is even better. Crime in cities controlled by Democrats is the result of weak gun laws in other states. Cities with weak gun laws like Plano, TX have low murder rates only because…squirrel!!! Defensive gun uses don’t really exist. The only reason that gun advocates exists is because they have small penises and can only have sex with firearms. Women gun owners who chose to defend themselves are…uh…squirrel!!!!

The only reason gun control doesn’t lower crime rates is due to the fact that we don’t have enough government. Forcing gun confiscation – at gunpoint – is the morally responsible thing to do and will result in world peace – especially after all the members of the NRA are executed because they are domestic terrorists.

I pray that these violent, intolerant statists do not start a war in their fervor to ban guns.

I get the argumentation, the next rationalization: “Because guns are freely available in North Philadelphia, the western Philly suburbs can never fix their own problem with gun violence!” Well, except that they don’t have one…. Only locales loaded with thugs and drugs seem to be magnets for illegal guns.

As for the problem of porous borders: It is obvious that the flow of drugs into Chicago, under the control of Sinaloa, is the prior evil. The guns come after, even if they have to be imported from China by rowboat. Fifty years ago the gangs were mostly about knives. The drug money elevated the budgets of the gangsters and raised the stakes in turf fights.

Our President openly expresses a desire to have weak porous national borders across which impoverished Latinos flood, looking for jobs that our urban poor themselves apparently cannot find (so they must not exist). Yet this same President’s staff justifies trying to saddle us, the law-abiding, with burdensome and likely unconstitutional big-brother-style firearms restrictions?

When the only place for thugs to get guns is over the national border, guns will flow across that southern border in a stream as voluminous and unstoppable as the unskilled labor flowing north today.

Fix the culture of violence-and-drugs in certain neighborhoods of Chicago, New Orleans, and Baltimore. Fix the mindset that thinks a “No Gun Zone!” sign brings safety. Fix the journalistic madness that has people thinking the nation has a big “crazy person shooting up a school” problem, when, by the numbers, the vastly larger problem is young ghetto men shooting each other for “a few dollars more.”

This “logic” is failed. They can ban guns in all of America… but we have a MASSIVE border on Mexico that is WIDE OPEN, especially thanks to this Administration and his supporters. Cocaine is illegal in this country, yet people get it anywhere in any city in this country. How do they suspect they will keep guns from being smuggled in and sold to criminals that want them? His logic is just so full of holes it’s scary. And the press being shallow thinkers who agree with them, will NEVER ask the question: How will you keep guns from being smuggled in when you can’t even keep drugs out? The worst part about it… only criminals will have guns. Very scary bunch of clown shoes these folks are.

citizens fleeing fascist states did not create the ability for successful legislation restricting citizens rights. the legislation drove people away. and who cares if those remaining live in fool’s paradise. those fleeing the communes mean more voters in other states to prevent the same legislative outcome as in the states left behind.

For a professional liar he’s rather inept. Living near the city of big shoulders I am accustomed to this BS. Everyone’s fault but the perp(or the cop who shot him in the back). Too many You-tube videos of the po-leece kicking azz they tells me…

For a professional liar he’s rather inept. Living near the city of big shoulders I am accustomed to this BS. Everyone’s fault but the perp(or the cop who shot him in the back). Too many You-tube videos of the po-leece kicking azz they tells me…

No, the administration doesn’t believe it. What they believe is that The Party has to get guns out of the hands of suburban and rural folks with real skills and incomes…and out of the hands of vets….before they can safely advance economic redistribution to a level that will satisfy their notion of what is just to do with your money.

Precisely what I was going to say. A resident of Chicago cannot buy a gun without a State-issued FOID card, which applies within the City, within the county, and within the whole dang state. Further, you can’t buy a gun in Illinois without a background check–I mean legally, nor can you buy a handgun in any other state without having it shipped to an Illinois FFL who will demand an FOID and a background check. You know, these guys wouldn’t sound quite so stupid if they actually knew what current law already provides. Even Chief McCarthy, who appears to be as dumb as he looks, acknowledges that the problem is not legally purchased firearms, but illegally acquired guns, something no background check system that could ever be devised will stop. and it is obvious that this stupidity was a “clarion call” for universal background checks on all purchases.

Toasty, you are 100% correct. It has been easily proved dozens of times. Detroit is just one good example from over a dozen, it has been in exclusive Democratic control for just short of 40 years. Chicago is another that has been under almost 100% Democrat politicians for 30 years. Washington DC, Baltimore, anybody can research this absolute fact it is easy. You simply find a city or populated area that has steadily been in decline, and you will find Democrats have been in complete or almost complete control for over 20 years. Sad but true.

“The city of Chicago is a good illustration of why allowing local jurisdictions to put in place these gun safety laws doesn’t work,”

I agree. Do not allow that any longer. All gun safety laws must be federal, and those must comply with 2A, of course. In order to comply with 2A, keeping or bearing arms may not be infringed. Thus, all gun safety laws boil down to either we require gun ownership/possession, or we leave it up to the individual.

I think this is great. Buy a firearm or be subjected to a tax. Everyone deserves free firearms. Makes perfect sense. The .guv isn’t dictating what you do or buy, just taxing you based on your consumer driven actions across state lines…….

I know, I know, it’s a cliche, a layup, the easiest counter argument to make, but here goes: If what Earnest says is true, then why do the place those guns come from not suffer from Chicago like violence and murder? Could it be the difference isn’t in gun laws, but in the people who live under those laws? Could it be we’re looking at exactly the wrong factor here?

New York City didn’t cut it’s murder rate from 14.5 per 100,000 to 4 pert 100,000 by enacting gun control. They did it by locking ip the bad guys. Hint. Hint.

Yet Obama is the one who’s about to release thousands of “non-violent” felons back into society. Along with al the illegal alien felons he’s already released.

Exactly, people from these places where guns can apparently be picked up at garage sales should be bloodbaths and the residents should be running to Chicago where it’s so much safer if you follow their insane version of logic to it’s conclusion. Goebbels must be grinnin’ and spinnin’ for joy to see his students carrying on in their efforts to subjugate the world.

“New York City didn’t cut it’s murder rate from 14.5 per 100,000 to 4 pert 100,000 by enacting gun control. They did it by locking ip the bad guys. Hint. Hint.”
NYC -after 9/11 SWATIFY’d a large majority of their average beat walkers (cause cops with MP5s can stop terrorists in jetliners from crashing into bldgs., even though they could do it again from JFK on most off days). This has broken their budget, so liberal (D)heads see green with helping Ohole empty GITMO, and provide security while the terrorists are tried in civilian NY Courts.

“NYC -after 9/11 SWATIFY’d a large majority of their average beat walkers”
Not sure where you got this information Joe. NYPD still wears blue and carries handguns as opposed to the camo and m4’s we often see the small town PD’s in “free” states equipped with. They also don’t ride around in APC’s during protests (see Baltimore) and are still able to keep protests from turning into riots (again, baltimore).

NYC – home of “New Yorking” (as in, that citizen had firearms, but citizen+ from NYC New Yorked him, and now he’s got none and is waiting to go to the ovens), was bat-sh_t crazy with MP5’s when they had that Time Square bomb-ish thingy, and they did it again in 2013 when they had that Boston marathon Bombing.

It’s just WAY TOO EASY FOR PEOPLE WITH BAD INTENTIONS TO JUST CROSS OUR BORDERS, for POS muslims to kill our spec ops elite in non-combat, for OUR diplomats to die of smoke inhalation over a video and their support to die waiting ON CLINTON AND THE OBAMA ADMINISHITSTRATION TO DOLE OUT PROTECTION!!!!
FU and all you liberal POSs that gave us this evil assbag.

It’s just WAY TOO EASY FOR BLUESTAE EVIL LIBERAL POS’ TO ELECT POT DEALING NIGERIANS FROM HAWAII; FOR PEOPLE WITH EVIL INTENTIONS TO SHIT CAN AMERICA WITH LIBERAL POLICIES; FOR STUPID F’Rs TO BECOME kinggodduke IN THEIR OWN MIND.
FU Hard

I haven’t been reading every comment on every thread lately, so I’m not sure if this has been brought up, but is this guy serious? I swear, I think he’s a troll writing horrible ignorant-sounding stuff on a pro-gun blog to give the Mother Jones crowd something to point at and say “look how evil those awful ammosexuals can be!” Every time Joe R. says anything, I get this vibe, am I the only one?

Sensitive ninj.
Good, at least you didn’t call me incorrect. Definitely sounds like it hit too close to home for you.
I repeat, verbatim, a previos post of mine: “Yeah, wait til I stop complaining. It’ll be too late to take up the mantra.”
I don’t worry about convincing mother anybody and I’ve written off those that they convince.

Timmy, i thank everyone for trying help keep me lucid ; )
If what I say is extreme, it’s only my attempt to draw wvery argument out to endgame as fast as possible. If I am unclear, that’s on me, but I think it might be clearer if we include a general relation to everything else in how we are generally getting along, and that every argument has already been played out, in one form or another, in human history.
Paul Harvey once related a quote from an evangelist (Billy Graham?) that went something like ‘i’m just a sign on a fence that says trespassers will be shot, you can get mad and yell at the sign if you want, but that won’t keep you from being shot if you decide to jump the fence’.

P.s. I love guns. LOVE ‘EM. They are not my GOD, nor my family, but they are my golf, and most of my vices. I don’t know why TTAG doesn’t hunt me down and gut me like a fish, much less why they continue to allow me to vent here. I wish all people of good will GODSPEED, and I hope you get to purchase more firearms and ammo than you could take in any one trip to the range, and I hope we keep this America thing going (as our forefathers had hoped) until JESUS lets us all know when we’ve had enough fun here.
TTAG is, guns and the grace of God are why we continue IMHO. I stand fiemly against all holding otherwise.

@ninjaTED, I don’t know who Joe R. is, and I don’t agree with him all the time, but I think he’s on the right side. Maybe he’s not politically correct, but that’s probably because he’s very passionate.

Their arguments that such and such draconian gun law jurisdictions are awash in bloody gun violence because neighboring jurisdictions have lax gun laws always fall flat.

First, they never note that a plurality of crime guns, perhaps a majority, originate in their own jurisdiction. So much for the “our tough gun laws are effective” myth.

Second, they never explain why gun violence rates are lower is those adjacent jurisdictions with the oh so lax gun laws. Why wouldn’t gun violence ve even worse in those area themselves? After all, they’re the one with lax gun laws. Why export the violence to harsh law places?

The answers are simple, but for politically correct purposes, people like Minister of Propaganda Earnest here cannot express them. He cannot concede that most of the gun violence is perpetrated and perpetuated by black gangs. Neither does he want to come clean and confess that good guys with guns are an effective countermeasure againt gun wielding crazy people. That would forfeit his entire worldview that everyone is helpless and only the government can save us.

Never let a crisis go to waste. Feds always look for the absurd as a trigger to enact more control over the populace. Earnest is merely announcing the first-step to national registration and confiscation. They are coming out from under cover.

BTW, since most jurisdictions indicate how tough they are on crime by creating more serious punishments, misdemeanors become felonies. Releasing 6000 felons sounds scary, but what is the breakdown between violent and non-violent? We really should know what we are talking about. A dime-bag MJ smoker charged with a felony is not near the risk of a multi-convicted murderer, or pedophile. We should be looking for common sense in our sentencing guidelines.

First New York did it by suspending the 4th and second amendments. The truth is most murders are gang or other crime related. Most guns used by the gangs are purchased using straw buyers. Hell, they shield gang members from doing other illegal acts so they maintain their clean records to keep their FOID cards. Chicago firearm laws have no effect on the ability of gangs to get firearms.

So, why are all the places those guns come from not having the same problems?

Show me a place fraught with violence, I’ll show you a place filled with frustrated, entitled socialist brats being told that their self-inflicted misfortunes are all the republicans’ fault by the democrats who screw them.

Vermont has constitutional carry and has a murder rate of 1.1 per hundred thousand. Chicago, which has had until recently a complete gun ban for forty years, has a murder rate of 15 per hundred thousand.

It might not be the gun laws that makes the difference. But if one looks at the demographics of both places, one might see what is the real issue. It is called cultural differences.

Thomas Sowell describes this cultural phenomenon in one of his books, “White liberals and black red necks”.

Houston and Chicago have close to the same population. Violent crime happens much more often when the weather is not freezing so Houston should have much more violent crime than Chicago. Furthermore, gun control laws are much more lax in Houston than Chicago so Houston should have much more violent crime than Chicago. And yet the violent crime rate in Chicago is much higher than in Houston.

In other words national gun control would not reduce the violent crime rate in Houston. Screw you Josh Earnest.

Start pushing we need to ban blacks and other brown minorties between the ages of 18 and 40 from owning firearms. Stop that bracket from buying anything firearm related period. Any household with anyone of that age also needs to be required to be firearm free. Watch how fast they start screaming racist and civil rights. It would be fun to watch the libs try and claim most murders in cities like Chicago by a very high percentage are not mostly that bracket.
I’m not for a ridiculous law like that by any stretch of the imagination but would love to act like I was in a public debate with these idiot politicians.

Interesting question — since guns are so plentiful and easy to obtain in those outlying areas, why aren’t the criminals going there and preying upon the people *there*? Even if you stipulate to this myth that Chicago gangbangers are catching a ride out to Skokie or something to get their Hi-Points, if the gun control laws in Chicago make it so inadvisable to commit crimes with guns, so disadvantageous, why not just stay out of town and victimize the rubes in New Bitterclingerton?

Wonder if Josh Earnest or Bloomberg or low-Watts have a canned answer to that one.

Friends and neighbors, we need to stop chasing the next “big bright shiny thing.” All the postings we see divert us from the truth of the matter. It is not about guns, magazine capacity, mass murder, random murder, mental health, licensing, background checks or anything we normally discuss here (that is, discuss as prompted by the initial postings). The entire effort to remove guns from polite society is about controlling the populace, AND NOTHING MORE. Rather than dissecting the latest feeble-minded spewing from gun-grabbers, we should be seeing postings that point to, or encourage, making the emotional (which would also be logical) argument that central governments never expand or control enough. That while the government in power may control the people ‘you’ want, the power of the government can change, be changed, then ‘you people’ will be the ones being controlled, and payback is a bitch. We should be highlighting, publishing, supporting, funding organizations that pound the fact that government control over one element of society is a tiger by the tail. We need postings, articles, news reports, organization policy papers that focus on how government control is inefficient and ineffective. Not documented by dry statistics, but by the waving of bloody shirts proving the government does not care about the people they claim to be serving. Change the narrative from rights and stats to raw emotion about how even the gun-grabbers hold something sacred, and that something can be taken away, or is already being taken away.

He’s no worse than the last guy. The apologist that perpetually looked and sounded like Hoover from Animal House. I’d like to say it will get better when their boss is gone, but it may be past that point already.

You don’t understand the federal mindset. Federal laws would be implemented that are designed to drive gun stores completely out of business, create a federal register and enable mandatory confiscation. Such laws could not be altered by state or local legislation/ordinance, only buy either regulatory fiat or congressional legislation.

1. If state and local gun control laws don’t work, then why not repeal them?

2. Funny, they didn’t tell us that these laws were not going to reduce crime when they were getting them passed into law. It’s only after they failed that they tell us they were never going to work in the first place.

3. If they passed national gun control laws they would probably blame other countries for their failure. If they passed worldwide gun control laws I suppose they would blame other planets.

Why fail on a municipal level when you can fail on the national level? There is so much opportunity to fail on gun control that is just being passed by. Just think: the entire country could be like Chiraq. Go big or go home!

Hilarious! They are using the “herd immunity” argument against the 2nd Amendment. For those of you who are still in denial that your freedom has been marked for termination, and whether you like it or not, you are are thrown in with he “anti-vaxxers”, and while ‘anti-vaxxers’are being labeled selfish and anti- science, while gun owners(legal) are being labeled terrorists. You can’t pick and choose which freedoms you want, we are either free or we are not.

Chicago’s gun control failure shows that continuing to disarm victims does not work. Doing the same thing at the federal level would only create MORE victims. Of course, it seems creating victims is the Democrat mantra. They may as well chant “DEATH TO AMERICA”.